It’s interesting to see the Republican Party progress through the stages of grief. We are beginning to see signs that they have arrived at the acceptance stage. Signs like this:
“We’re too outnumbered to govern, to set policy,” said Representative John Fleming, a Louisiana Republican who has taken confrontational postures in the past. “But we can shape policy as the loyal opposition.”
Perhaps in the next stage, the Republicans can ruminate about the meaning of loyalty. What does it really mean in the context of a political party in the minority but still with partial responsibility for governing? How much deference do they need to show? Should the Speaker of the House consider himself an extension of the administration, at least to a degree? At least on foreign policy? Perhaps, on economic policy? Should the Republicans at least get out of the way on those big issues and focus more on social issues and developing policy for the next elections?
I think so.
Just as some perceive cherry picking cynacism as a sign of superiority I’m not so sure Rep’s have done justice to the word loyalty. Instead they have added loyalty to their word shields. Watching Hillary Clinton’s Senate testimony this morning was a gigantic serving of what real loyalty looks like.
I loved it when she told Sen. Johnson off.
Her whole testimony that I saw was a Tour de Force. Hard not to stand up and cheer! Remembering Joe’s parade (I did love Joe’s huge smile and comment, ‘there’s a parade??!!!) and fiscal cliff negotiations can’t help but appreciate 2016 opportunities.
Yeah, democracy’s a bitch that way.
Besides which, actual governing never seemed to interest most of them. It was always about setting policy.
Exactly right. They’re a natural opposition party. Their ideology is a critique of an actual governing philosophy; it is not a governing philosophy at all, any more than deconstructionist postmodernism is a guide to writing well.
I like your analogy. I think of the GOP as a group of guys in a bar bitching about the government, only better organized and financed.
As PJ once said: “The Republicans are the party that says big government doesn’t work, then they get elected and prove it.”
Should the Speaker of the House consider himself an extension of the administration, at least to a degree?
The Speaker of the House should consider himself to be one part of a common undertaking with the administration. Not part, but partner.
The current Speaker of the House should consider himself an “undertaker” and bury the far right at sea.